Barrick and Forth: The Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Course and Finds that Attorney/Expert Communications are Immune From Discovery

Author: Marc L. Penchansky

On November 23, 2011, the Superior Court sitting en banc issued its opinion in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 2011 Pa. Super. 251 (2011). The full Court disagreed with a previous panel’s opinion and held that that communications between an expert and a party’s attorney were not discoverable.

By way of background, John Barrick was injured while in the cafeteria at Holy Spirit Hospital. Mr. Barrick sought treatment for his injuries from an orthopedic surgeon. That surgeon was later retained by Mr. Barrick as an expert witness in his suit against the Hospital. The Hospital issued a rather innocuous-sounding subpoena requesting Mr. Barrick’s complete file and medical records from the orthopedic surgeon. The orthopedic surgeon agreed to provide the medical records but did not provide the records that pertain to Mr. Barrick but were not created for the purpose of treatment.
Click “2” Below to Continue Reading Post

One response

  1. Pingback: Barrick and Forth Again « Clear and Convincing Evidence

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: